Abstract

Using the URL or DOI link below will
ensure access to this page indefinitely

Based on your IP address, your paper is being delivered by:

New York, USA

Processing request.

Illinois, USA

Processing request.

Brussels, Belgium

Processing request.

Seoul, Korea

Processing request.

California, USA

Processing request.

If you have any problems downloading this paper,please click on another Download Location above, or view our FAQFile name: SSRN-id1988223. ; Size: 358K

You will receive a perfect bound, 8.5 x 11 inch, black and white printed copy of this PDF document with a glossy color cover. Currently shipping to U.S. addresses only. Your order will ship within 3 business days. For more details, view our FAQ.

Quantity:Total Price = $9.99 plus shipping (U.S. Only)

If you have any problems with this purchase, please contact us for assistance by email: Support@SSRN.com or by phone: 877-SSRNHelp (877 777 6435) in the United States, or +1 585 442 8170 outside of the United States. We are open Monday through Friday between the hours of 8:30AM and 6:00PM, United States Eastern.

Explaining Differences in Labour Market Transitions between Panel and Life-Course Data in West-Germany

Panel and life-course data are ideally suited to unraveling labor market dynamics, but their designs differ, with potential consequences for the estimated relationships. To gauge the extent to which these two data designs produce dissimilar transition rates and the causation thereof, we use the German Life History Study and the German Socio-Economic Panel. Life-course data in particular suffer from recall effects due to memory bias causing understated transition probabilities. Panel data suffer from seam effects due to spurious transitions between statuses recalled in activity calendars that generate heaps at particular time points and cause overstated transition probabilities. We combine the two datasets and estimate multilevel (multistate) discrete-time models for event history data to model transitions between labor market states taking these factors into account. Though we find much lower transition rates in the life-course study, confirming the results of Solga (Qual Quant 35:291-309, 2001) in this Journal for East-Germany, part of the difference can be explained by short spells recall bias. The estimated models on exit, re-entry and job mobility on the combined datasets show indeed a negative retrospective design effect. Another specification that includes the length of the recall period shows no significant decrease in the transition probabilities with increasing length, suggesting that the negative design effect is due to other design differences.